Yamaha AVENTAGE 2021 AV Receivers Bulk Up on Power and 8K Features

[Verdinut]

Using MusicCast, nothing seems to sound better than Qobuz. Hi-res via Qobuz is supported in MusicCast. As was mentioned, Amazon Music hi-res is also supported and sounds great.

Airplay 2 supports up to 24/48 BUT, Apple Music will only output 16/44.1 when using it playing Hi-Res tracks from Apple Music. Interestingly, Amazon Music hi-res will go over Airplay 2 up to 24/48 depending on the source device used for playback.

Tidal is a mixed bag like others based on the service tier and source device used for playback. Just because a service supports hi-res doesn’t mean it will be available for playback on any given device. Just ask Apple Music users.

I’m not convinced hi-res sounds any better than good 16/44.1 these day but I also don’t like devices converting signals for output for one reason or another during playback.

View attachment 64045

The CD 16/44.1 format has wide dynamic range of 96 dB, who needs the stupid audiophool 24 bit with a144 dB dynamic range?

 

[Trebdp83]

I wouldn’t know exactly who in fact needs it. I was simply commenting on those services that support hi-res playback using MusicCast. Those not concerned with such things can go about their business.

 

[OldAndSlowDev]

There is actually no difference to be heard between 16 bit/44.1 kHz and 24 bit/96 kHz.

The 24-Bit Delusion

HD Music, HD Tracks, 24-Bit, 24/192, 24-bit 192KHz, DSD

www.mojo-audio.com

Yes but in a blind test I can have a 100% on hearing the difference... so I think I am supra lucky to always have 100%... or maybe the article is wrong...

 

[OldAndSlowDev]

Using MusicCast, nothing seems to sound better than Qobuz. Hi-res via Qobuz is supported in MusicCast. As was mentioned, Amazon Music hi-res is also supported and sounds great.

Airplay 2 supports up to 24/48 BUT, Apple Music will only output 16/44.1 when using it playing Hi-Res tracks from Apple Music. Interestingly, Amazon Music hi-res will go over Airplay 2 up to 24/48 depending on the source device used for playback.

Tidal is a mixed bag like others based on the service tier and source device used for playback. Just because a service supports hi-res doesn’t mean it will be available for playback on any given device. Just ask Apple Music users.

I’m not convinced hi-res sounds any better than good 16/44.1 these day but I also don’t like devices converting signals for output for one reason or another during playback.

View attachment 64045

I don't have Qobuz in MusicCast, I wanted to try it this morning, but I can only use the native iOS app and Airplay (so not high res). Maybe Qobuz isn't supported in Canada with MusicCast, don't know

 

[OldAndSlowDev]

My take is that if the ORIGINAL music is awesome, then it doesn’t matter if it’s 192/24 vs 44/16 when volume matched.

I made tests on the latest Melody Gardot album, and it's "kinda" night and day once you notice some places to focus on... piano high notes are really more detailed and dynamic

 

[Trebdp83]

Qobuz only very recently became available in Canada. It apparently hasn’t been added to MusicCast there quite yet.

 

[Verdinut]

Yes but in a blind test I can have a 100% on hearing the difference... so I think I am supra lucky to always have 100%... or maybe the article is wrong...

No, the MOJO article is right. Unless you did proceed with a double blind testing with someone else using a double setup for switching from one audio format to the other, your assumption is wrong. Our ears cannot hear above 20 kHz, and forget about the 144 dB dynamic range which is useless.

 

[OldAndSlowDev]

No, the MOJO article is right. Unless you did proceed with a double blind testing with someone else using a double setup for switching from one audio format to the other, your assumption is wrong. Our ears cannot hear above 20 kHz, and forget about the 144 dB dynamic range which is useless.

I know the theory about 44khz able to capture up to 22kHz signal which is above the earring range. I just made a try, and I can “perceive” a difference. Not sure it’s worth spending more money on streaming service. But it brought some goosebumps in some songs I know very well in some places I wasn’t before.
It’s like for displays, it depends on people. I tried 360Hz displays and I can’t see a big improvement compared to my daily 165hz display. But when my daily monitor is running around 155hz I can perceive it and I don’t like it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I made tests on the latest Melody Gardot album, and it's "kinda" night and day once you notice some places to focus on... piano high notes are really more detailed and dynamic

Do any of these Hi-Rez audio streaming services guarantee that all their files were ORIGINALLY RECORDED using high-rez?

How do you know someone didn’t just convert low-res files to hi-rez? I can convert it in seconds.

When you say “blind testing” who was conducting this test?

Did you measure the SPL of the music files on these tests?

 

[OldAndSlowDev]

Do any of these Hi-Rez audio streaming services guarantee that all their files were ORIGINALLY RECORDED using high-rez?
- Tried Amazon Music Unlimited, checked in the amp what was received : FLAC 192kHz/24bit

How do you know someone didn’t just convert low-res files to hi-rez? I can convert it in seconds.
- Maybe Jeff Bezos just did that

When you say “blind testing” who was conducting this test?
- My daughter, strange question...

Did you measure the SPL of the music files on these tests?
- Nope, was just hearing more things on a 7s part of a song...

I am not saying it's a game changer... but it's noticeable.
On a specific piano note, I am able to hear the hammer attack on the string then then fall off and harmonics, on the 48kHz, the piano not sound like a sample, no dynamic, no fall off, like the note is played and the sound is perfectly flat

To better describe what I hear

 

[OldAndSlowDev]

Just spent some times on Money Dark Side of the Moon Remastered 50 years anniversary... My life is ruined... I just want High Res Audio everywhere...

 

[Epsonfan]

I use iTunes lossless Dolby Atmos & it's a blast

 

[OldAndSlowDev]

Yes it's nice, but once you tried high res audio... Feel I miss something

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yes it's nice, but once you tried high res audio... Feel I miss something

We've tried "hi res audio" in audio systems costing $50K+.

There have been many discussions of hi res audio on AH, so nothing new here.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I use iTunes lossless Dolby Atmos & it's a blast

ATMOS music can be fun.

 

[OldAndSlowDev]

Brother In Arms has been remastered in Atmos... Some Beatles album too

 

[OldAndSlowDev]

We've tried "hi res audio" in audio systems costing $50K+.

There have been many discussions of hi res audio on AH, so nothing new here.

I posted here because I tried the amp direct ability to decode high res audio directly from stream using its own DAC, but I get your point

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I posted here because I tried the amp direct ability to decode high res audio directly from stream using its own DAC, but I get your point

You were comparing MusicCast - AmazonMusic 192/96kHz/24bit FLAC vs. Airplay - AppleMusic 44/16, both on the Yamaha A8A?

It's possible that AppleMusic service just sucks.

I never use Apple or AirPlay since I only use MusicCast 100% of the time.

Have you compared MusicCast AmazonMusic 192/24 service vs streaming 44/16 files directly from your phone or PC to MusicCast on the A8A?

Or compare AmazonMusic 192/24 vs AmazonMusic 44/16 using the same music file (down convert the 192/24 to 44/16).

The question that I have not been able to answer is this: Are these 192/24 files originally recorded using 192/24 in the studio? Or were they recorded using 44/16 and then "remastered" to 192/24 using the same 44/16 recordings?

 

[isolar8001]

The question that I have not been able to answer is this: Are these 192/24 files originally recorded using 192/24 in the studio? Or were they recorded using 44/16 and then "remastered" to 192/24 using the same 44/16 recordings?

I think we kinda know the answer to that, but hope it's not true.
I doubt any of these streaming services went to the source for actual higher rez files for each and every artist/album. That would be quite expensive and time consuming for them. (they might have done this for some, but most certainly not for all)

It only takes about 2 minutes in Foobar to make anything HiRez.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I think we kinda know the answer to that, but hope it's not true.
I doubt any of these streaming services went to the source for actual higher rez files for each and every artist/album. That would be quite expensive and time consuming for them. (they might have done this for some, but most certainly not for all)

It only takes about 2 minutes in Foobar to make anything HiRez.

Exactly. I’ve even heard some people say they took Vinyl and “remastered” it to HiRez.

As if it will sound any better than the original recording.

We see movie studios take old analog films that look like crap and “remaster” them to 4K digital all the time. Some look a little better, and some still look like crap depending on the original source.

It’s the same way with audio, except it’s a lot easier to convert loRez to HiRez audio.

So what’s the point paying for all these so-called 192/24 audio files that came from 44/16 original sources?

I do sound depressing. Probably a lot happier telling myself that all these 192/24 files were originally recorded in the studio at 192/24.